As my regular readers are aware, I have often expressed my feeling that we are living in a world that is “through the rabbit hole”. Today, dear reader, that feeling is overwhelming. Today I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with, of all people, Camille Paglia, an outrageously outspoken lesbian feminist. If you are a regular reader of mine you will understand that it is not Ms. Paglia’s saphic preferences that I have an issue with but rather her previous political leanings and history of bizarre comentary on topics ranging from feminism to women’s role in society.
Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty patriarch
In the latest episode of our fall down the rabbit hole Camille Paglia and I are agreeing on the treatment of Phil Robertson, the patriarch of A & E’s Duck Dynasty, over his comments in an article with GQ. His offending comments are shared here:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
The interviewer asked for clarification on the topic of sin:
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
For the record, do I agree with the judgement and tone in Mr. Robertson’s comments? Certainly not. Are they justification for his firing from the A & E show based on his business and family life? Certainly not.
Here is why. In this nation we have something called the Constitution. In the Constitution we have something known as the First Amendment which states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In short that means that even if I find Mr. Robertson’s speech offensive (which I do), it-and his right to express it as he did in the GQ interview-is protected by the Constitution. What A & E chooses to do with the show is up to them. They may be able to discontinue Mr. Robertson’s contract based on a non-discrimination clause. Society in general though would benefit from remembering that we do have a Constitution in this country and all types of inflamatory political speech are protected as a result. As much as I deplore the speech of the Westboro Baptist Church* or the Aryan Nation* they are protected as free speech.
This is exactly the position that Ms. Paglia took in an interview in the Daily Caller yesterday, albeit in her own unique fashion. The actual quote was:
“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”
Camille Paglia, militant feminist, college professor and author
In this, we agree Camille. The culture of this country has become facist when it comes to political correctness, as illustrated by multiple Facebook memes picturing scary screaming liberals with taglines that say things like “I am a tolerant liberal, but if you do not agree with me you are a homophobic, Islamiphobic, intollerant redneck” or something to that effect. And now I have to go take some Tylenol and wash it down with a glass of wine since I have thumped my head upon landing on the rock bottom of the rabbit hole. Merry Christmas dear readers! See you in 2014!
*CLARIFICATION: Just so that we are on the same page, I am not comparing Mr. Robertson to the Westboro Baptist Church or the Aryan Nation-simply stating that there are some opinions that we find offensive expressed in our society. The price of the freedom we all enjoy is the risk of being offended by someone else’s Constitutionally protected free speech.
Phil Robertson has a traditional Biblical view on homosexuality. Why? Wait for it…. Because he is a conservative Christian. Did he express his opinion in a way that was in-your-face harsh? No doubt. But so what? I am so tired of the whining and sputtering by elitists on both sides. He should in no way be compared to either the Aryan Nation or the WBC nuts. The entirety of comments should be reviewed. That’s not always happening. And Paglia? Clap, clap, clap.
Did he express his opinion in a way that was in-your-face harsh?
How in the world was that harsh, much less “in-your-face harsh”? His first statement was simply that he can’t understand how a man could prefer another man’s exit-door to a woman’s designed-and-built-for-it accouterments. Was it harsh because he called it sin? Was it harsh because he said that sin would keep you out of heaven? If so, then I call for much more harshness in our language.
Kate, I agree with what you are saying completely. I wasn’t trying to compare Phil to the WBC wingnuts simply saying that there are groups and individuals whose opinions I (and others) find offensive but they are protected by the 1st Amendment. Martin Bashir-same thing. He is a whiny, elitist creepola with disgusting woman issues who said something horrific and sickening but it is 1st Amendment stuff again (for the record-MSNBC should have used their EEOC clause and fired his ass). That is what I was saying, and it freaks me out that I agree with Camille Paglia :0)
How do we balance GLAAD’s intolerance in this case with the First Amendment and capitalism? A & E will be the loser, and GLAAD may be too. Phil Robertson will continue to kill ducks.
I’m old enough to remember when it was our friends on the left who were the ardent defenders of free speech, back when the Vietnam war was the huge issue of the day. It was the left who were marching and protesting and telling us that it was their constitutional right to say whatever they wanted.
But they were superseded by the next wave of liberals. The Vietnam protesters have reached retirement age, and it is the next wave, those who became the liberals of the late seventies and early eighties, those in their early fifties and late forties now, who are in power on our college campuses, who have imposed various “speech codes” to stifle dissent, because, unlike the Vietnam protesters, the government was not against them when they hit college age. Kent State was eight and ten and twelve years in the past for them, and the draft was not something about which they had to worry.
I disagree a bit, Dana. The folks who imposed speech codes are the exact same folks who stood on campuses in the 60s/70s and demanded to be heard. It was never about actual freedom – it was always about demanding their side be heard and becoming the dominant argument.
Oh yes, the first wave has reached retirement age. However, many of them are still active, since there’s no retirement from activism. Also, they instituted the speech codes 20 years ago before they retired. The next generation is now simply using the tools they were given to consolidate their power.
It has always been about power and control. There were those who were deluded into believing the ‘ideals’ of the movement, yes. But those ideals have always been in service of achieving power.
As for the left-whatever. They will continue to think they are the smartest people in the room (contrary to the proof all around us right now) and we will continue to know the truth. I do wish we could all just agree to disagree and comport ourselves with some class as a whole as Americans.
I don’t see what’s so certain about it for you! I pretty much DO agree with what he said, and I don’t mind his directness either. Wouldn’t want him to say it so coarsely to my little kids, of course, but hey, he was speaking to a MENS magazine, for Pete’s sake! Are we so prissy now we can’t stomach just a little blunt speech in adult company?
And BTW, Paglia is “militant”?? I don’t think so. Some of her tastes in culture are a bit much for me, but I think she despises the militant feminists herself. Read her latest article, “It’s a Man’s World, and Always Will Be”.
You bring up a good point. It used to be that we were a lot freer to say what we thought, especially in the “men’s club.” Men’s magazines are like the modern version of the cigar room, where dirty jokes and frank speech were welcomed even if cussing in front of a lady was not. Then again, now that we are all “liberated,” we have new rules. Amazing how so called liberation makes me feel a lot more restricted.
Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”
Kate says: 
GWB says: 
Jennifer says: 
Pacific Patriot says: 
lyn says: 
ROS says: 
Fred says: 
13 Comments